Seventh Circuit Severely Criticizes Another Attorney
Professional Conduct
September 20, 2011
When I was a clerk for the Ohio Court of Appeals, I came across some attorneys whose work product was so poor that I suggested that the judges in my court do something about it. I don't know what steps they took (if any), but I do know that they didn't do anything on the record. The Seventh Circuit does not extend attorneys that same courtesy.
Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit took an attorney to task in Stanard v. Nygren, ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. 2011), Case No. 09-1487. The case involved claims by a property owner against the local Sheriff, his deputies, and the county. The following are all quotes from the opinion.
When I was a clerk for the Ohio Court of Appeals, I came across some attorneys whose work product was so poor that I suggested that the judges in my court do something about it. I don't know what steps they took (if any), but I do know that they didn't do anything on the record. The Seventh Circuit does not extend attorneys that same courtesy.
Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit took an attorney to task in Stanard v. Nygren, ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. 2011), Case No. 09-1487. The case involved claims by a property owner against the local Sheriff, his deputies, and the county. The following are all quotes from the opinion.
Stanard sued Nygren, 22 of his deputies, and McHenry County, alleging a conspiracy to violate his rights, but his attorney Walter Maksym proved unable to file an intelligible complaint.
...
Each iteration of the complaint was generally incomprehensible and riddled with errors, making it impossible for the defendants to know what wrongs they were accused of committing. Maksym's persistent failure to comply with basic directions from the court and his open defiance of court orders amply justified the judge’s decision to dismiss with prejudice.
...
Each iteration of the complaint was generally incomprehensible and riddled with errors, making it impossible for the defendants to know what wrongs they were accused of committing. Maksym's persistent failure to comply with basic directions from the court and his open defiance of court orders amply justified the judge’s decision to dismiss with prejudice.
The original complaint was 52 pages long and purported to assert 28 counts, including civil RICO claims, §§ 1983 and 1985 claims, and various state-law claims. Each claim targeted "the defendants" as a group; the complaint did not specify which individual defendants were alleged to be liable on each claim. The complaint also included a number of obviously frivolous claims; for example, a violation of the Hobbs Act (a criminal statute that does not provide a private right of action), something called a "direct action under [the] U.S. Constitution," and a generic "federal class action."
The district court rejected Maksym's latest effort, outlining at length the many pleading defects in the second amended complaint. To illustrate its basic incoherence, the court quoted verbatim from a number of its paragraphs, including one that contained a staggering and incomprehensible 345-word sentence. The court also took note of the "grammatical and spelling errors" throughout the complaint, which it said were "too numerous to add '[sic]' where required."
At least 23 sentences contained 100 or more words. This includes sentences of 385, 345, and 291 words but does not include sentences set off with multiple subsections.
...
Much of the writing is little more than gibberish.
...
Given three attempts to file a proper complaint, Maksym could not even bring himself to correct the errors cataloged by the district court following the first two rejections.
...
Much of the writing is little more than gibberish.
...
Given three attempts to file a proper complaint, Maksym could not even bring himself to correct the errors cataloged by the district court following the first two rejections.
One final note: Compounding the problems he exhibited in the district court, Maksym failed to file a reasonably coherent brief on appeal. All the deficiencies that plagued the various versions of the complaint also infected his briefs here. Maksym never directly addressed the issues before this court, relying instead on cases of marginal or no relevance. In the table of authorities in his opening brief, he cites 81 cases, but almost all of them are completely irrelevant to the issues presented here. In his reply brief, after the defendants had crystallized the issues, Maksym again failed to meaningfully—or even comprehensibly—articulate an argument. His appellate briefing was characterized by a reliance on irrelevant, conclusory, and often incoherent arguments of which the following is a representative example: "Plaintiffs claims were not 'intelligible'—no 'needle in a haystack' as Appellees' claim."
In short, Maksym's entire approach to this case was alarmingly deficient. For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court was well within its discretion to deny leave to file the second amended complaint and to dismiss the case with prejudice. We also order Maksym to show cause within 21 days why he should not be removed or suspended from the bar of this court or otherwise disciplined under Rule 46(b) or (c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. We also direct the clerk of this court to send a copy of this opinion to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois for any action it deems appropriate.
In short, Maksym's entire approach to this case was alarmingly deficient. For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court was well within its discretion to deny leave to file the second amended complaint and to dismiss the case with prejudice. We also order Maksym to show cause within 21 days why he should not be removed or suspended from the bar of this court or otherwise disciplined under Rule 46(b) or (c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. We also direct the clerk of this court to send a copy of this opinion to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois for any action it deems appropriate.
TAG 7th Circuit
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/272
